We share the same legislature (despite certain devolution of function to Scotland more recently), the same currency, we represent the same team in most sporting events. How much more unified could we be currently?

So why vote Yes now, why not wait till there is someone intelligent in place who can work with the UK government to make sure all the boxes are ticked and it can be done properly with the help of the UK instead of being selfish and doing it on the back of watching braveheart too many times.

I am not the one using a kilt wearing highlander as my avatar!

There is nothing selfish about it, this is a once in a generation chance to vote on this issue. I am confident the Scottish people, should they gain independence, would be able to elect a competent leader thereafter.

We share the same legislature (despite certain devolution of function to Scotland more recently), the same currency, we represent the same team in most sporting events. How much more unified could we be currently?

There is nothing selfish about it, this is a once in a generation chance to vote on this issue. I am confident the Scottish people, should they gain independence, would be able to elect a competent leader thereafter.

But you will blindly follow and vote for a politician who you don't like.

Thankfully for the sake of Scotland this is not going to happen with Salmond leading the way.

I'm not sure how the idea that Scotland and England ceased to exist in 1707 squares with the fact that all new legislation in the UK starts off by telling the reader whether is applies in England, England and Wales, Scotland...etc.

While England and Scotland form part of the United Kingdom under a single Head of State, the two countries have never shared a legal system.

There is nothing selfish about it, this is a once in a generation chance to vote on this issue. I am confident the Scottish people, should they gain independence, would be able to elect a competent leader thereafter.

I strongly disagree. It is selfish in the extreme and doing "just because you can" without having put in place a post yes-result strategy let alone thought through all the consequences of a yes vote could be put in a text-book as a definition of selfish, right after "how not to do it" entry.

I'm not sure how the idea that Scotland and England ceased to exist in 1707 squares with the fact that all new legislation in the UK starts off by telling the reader whether is applies in England, England and Wales, Scotland...etc.

While England and Scotland form part of the United Kingdom under a single Head of State, the two countries have never shared a legal system.

Ok, here goes again...

England and Scotland did not cease to exist. Check, they are both still there, honest.

They did cease to exist as separate countries though, but Scotland kept its own legal system, as did England.

I strongly disagree. It is selfish in the extreme and doing "just because you can" without having put in place a post yes-result strategy let alone thought through all the consequences of a yes vote could be put in a text-book as a definition of selfish, right after "how not to do it" entry.

PS: The ends never justify the means. That argument usually loses hands down every time in an(y) ethical debate.

Again, comprehension is important. I never wrote we should just do it because we can. I did write that (in my opinion) it is important to do (what I believe is right) it now, as who knows when we will get another opportunity to do the right thing.

If there was another scheduled vote in 2 weeks or in 2 centuries, it matters not a jot, what is important is to do it at the right time, i.e. now.

Luckily, we are not having an ethical debate. There is nothing unethical about people democratically chosing to remain as GB or go independent...why bring this irrelevant strawman into play?

Again, comprehension is important. I never wrote we should just do it because we can. I did write that (in my opinion) it is important to do (what I believe is right) it now, as who knows when we will get another opportunity to do the right thing.

If there was another scheduled vote in 2 weeks or in 2 centuries, it matters not a jot, what is important is to do it at the right time, i.e. now.

I would argue that if the concequences have not been thought through or a "post" plan put in place, then it is not the right time. What you are talking about it someone saying do now, think later. All well and good if you are looking for an adrenaline rush... but let's be honest hard core adrenaline junkies are closet planners, because a simple slip up could mean their death.

Whenever Salmond has been asked about "post" the answer has been "we'll see". Except for the currency where he had to do a lot of back pedaling and then a "we'll see"...

In this case we're talking about the potential impovrishment of millions... is it right to play that game with so many livelihoods at stake? The irony of course is that many of the yes voters are either 1) rich enough not to care (a la Sean Connery) or 2) the Rab Nesbit-type who don't know any better and think things will get better without England "bleeding them dry"...

I would argue that if the concequences have not been thought through or a "post" plan put in place, then it is not the right time. What you are talking about it someone saying do now, think later. All well and good if you are looking for an adrenaline rush... but let's be honest hard core adrenaline junkies are closet planners, because a simple slip up could mean their death.

Whenever Salmond has been asked about "post" the answer has been "we'll see". Except for the currency where he had to do a lot of back pedaling and then a "we'll see"...

In this case we're talking about the potential impovrishment of millions... is it right to play that game with so many livelihoods at stake? THe irony of course is that many of the yes voters are either 1) rich enough not to care (a la Sean Connery) or b) the Rab Nesbit-type who don't know any better and think things will get better without England "bleeding them dry"...

Because you said the ends justify the means... they don't.

Come on you NO haters, always focusing on the potential negatives

Are we not also talking about the potential enrichment of millions of people, living in a gleeful socialist state where you are cared for, from cradle to grave? Where Education will remain free in order for us to build the platform for a successful future. Where the elderly will be guaranteed care and nobody will go without medication because they can't afford it?

I think these are noble goals, and it behooves us to try and make it happen.

Will it all be plain sailing? Of course not, but the mistakes and pitfalls will be our own, and we'll only have ourselves to blame when the time for introspection comes, the English will be off the hook for once! I am sure medium-long term, this will actually herald a new age of respect and friendship between our two lands, and we sit next to one another as equals, not as controlling husband Westminister handing back a portion of downtrodden wifey's earnings for her to subsist on.

Perhaps the people that vote Yes think of this?

I would pick you up on Rab C though - Govan is the heart of the Protestant movement in Glasgow, home to Rangers FC, there's as much chance of the average Rangers fan voting YES as there is of David Cameron wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt.

Jebus, where to begin here? So much unbelievably ill-informed nonsense from the Better Togetherers (especially the overtly kilt-wearing ones) that I'm thinking I'm glad you live over here and don't get a vote!

So when you no longer have an EU passport and are treated as non-EU by Switzerland for a permit…. you'll be ok with that!? No passport/EU questions have been answered as far as I'm aware…… Not that Salmond has any questions answered or proper plan!

This is clearly nonsense, you are suggesting that people born in the UK will have their passports withdrawn immediately on voting yes, or on independence? That the EU will remove the rights of 5 million or so people who have been EU citizens since there was an EU? This is pure crap and either you know it to be crap or you're a fool.

You also later claim (on what authority exactly?) that those voting yes are doing so because they hate England. Again, pure tripe, the England haters tend to be the tartan-wearing little Scotlanders who are terrified of losing the teat, like our frine Connor MacLeod of the Clan Macleod over here.

I personally think Salmond is leading the Scottish population in the wrong direction. At the last election the Scottish Nationalist Party surprised everyone by gaining a very large share of the vote. No mention was made about independence in the last campaign, and now he is elected he is leading everyone down a dangerous path, for which he was not elected!

They surprised everyone exceept people who actually live in Scotland and take an interest in politics. And unless you've had your head in a ditch for 90 odd years, the stated aim of the SNP is for an independent Scotland. This referendum was hubristically forced on the SNP by the Better Togethers (particularly in Scottish Labour) because they short-sightedly thought No would win by a mile and it would see the end of it for a generation, and kill off the SNP too. Good luck with that...

My opinion is that Scotland would be very foolish to break away: do the people really think they will be richer from oil revenue? Have they not considered the amount Britain invests every year on Scottish social security?

The oil is a side issue here, in my opinion, but it's still a lot of cash which a small country, even in its poorer years, can use to invest back in the country rather than spend on those social security "investments"

Most EU countries are watching Scotland with shock. Many have their own "wishful thinking, break away citizens", and most countries have stated they will not agree to Scotland joining the EU.

This is your most obviously lie. Unless you'd like to present us with a list of these countries and their statements? Your lies, in fact, are so obviously poor that I'll be ignoring the rest of your contribution.

Banks simply won't take the risk of being headquartered in a country that can't bail them out.

And we should be happy to take responsibility for shit banks which need bailed out should we? I fail to see how this is a bad thing. There will surely be banks and it surely encourages the banks to be run more sensibly so they don't rely on the state to bail out their mistakes.

Faslane will also close - the UK won't quarter it's fleet in a foreign country - taking several thousand jobs away from the west of Scotland.

It's often overstated how many people rely on work from Faslane. I believe the government itself said about 500 jobs rely on the nuclear weapons. And most of the jobs at Faslane are MOD, they live on the base and are not from the local area, taking these jobs away has minimal effect. In fact it's more likey this place will bea heavily resued in an independent Scotland, or indeed its removal will allow the exploration of the firth of Clyde for oil, with a potential boom in jobs in Glasgow and the west this could bring, rather than the few thousand MOD employees flown in today.

Oil revenues are running out - and it's not clear that all the oil fields currently described as "Scottish" would continue to be so. The sea boundaries between England and Scotland don't currently follow international norms, so the rUK could legitimately ask for them to be redrawn. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the oil companies also moved their admin operations south of the border, in irder to retain access to the EU.

You're right that the boundaries don't meet international norms, but that's because Westminister redrew them in the late 90s to be in their favour, with the support of Donald Dewar, this going to any international court will see it being restored in Scotland's favour.
As for the oil companies moving south to be in the EU? I'm assuming you know that Norway isn't in the EU, right? It doesn't seem to affect their oil sector. Anyhoo, we'll be in the EU so it's a moot point.

Most of your posts are wishful thinking, exaggeration, lies, propaganda, conjecture and nonsense, and yet, like the best of them, you accuse the other side of the same.

And I'm barely able to comprehend Mr Shortbread Tin Highlander accusing people of watching Braveheart too many times.

I'm not taking any sides. I think the rest of the UK will be economically better off but spiritually poorer if Scotland leaves. However, since I don't live in either place, I have no particular dog in this race. I'm just saying what I see.

Sure you don't want toxic banks but ALL banks need to have contingency plans. Global economic shocks are not often foreseeable, and any sound, responsible, well-run bank will not risk the funds of it's investors by being based in a country that does not have it's own central bank. This isn't lies or propaganda or wishful-thinking. It's basic business sense.

I genuinely wish that the Scottish people were being offered a real choice about independence, instead of just the option to risk everything on a lovely idea with no hard planning behind it. "She'll be right" is a reasonable approach when gaffer taping the exhaust back onto your truck, less so when creating a nation.

Anyway, as all the comments above show, this is clearly a vote of positivity against negativity, of hope against fear, of potential against the status quo.

Now is some of that hope and positivity naive? No doubt. Is a lot of the potential wishful thinking? Again, no doubt, but the point is that this is a restoration of Scottish democracy, the Scottish parliament was the first step, and this is the obvious second step.

Scotland and England (or the rUK if you prefer) are two seperate countries already, politically, socially, economically, it's just that some people aren't willing to face up to that yet. It will happen, whether it happens now, or in 15 years, or potentially in 2 or 3 years when the English vote to leave the EU and the Scots vote to stay in, it will happen. I'd prefer it to happen now rather than after more years of decline.

I would pick you up on Rab C though - Govan is the heart of the Protestant movement in Glasgow, home to Rangers FC, there's as much chance of the average Rangers fan voting YES as there is of David Cameron wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt.

LOL - one of my main "yes and rid us of the English yoke" friends is a Rangers fan

...Scotland and England (or the rUK if you prefer) are two seperate countries already, politically, socially, economically, it's just that some people aren't willing to face up to that yet. It will happen, whether it happens now, or in 15 years, or potentially in 2 or 3 years when the English vote to leave the EU and the Scots vote to stay in, it will happen. I'd prefer it to happen now rather than after more years of decline.

At the risk of even faster and longer decline! I'm all for less, not more government. Meh. Not my problem. Good luck. I like Scotland and spent a happy and formative 12 months in Aberdeen, including time working in the city council plumbing stores - now that was an experience.

I'm pretty sure that the Welsh and Northern Irish certainly would prefer not to be disregarded, yes...

The SNP are being utterly negligent towards their own people by failing to have robust plans in place to secure their on-going prosperity. Hope and positivity are fine and wonderful things. Unfortunately, you can't feed your kids with them.

I think the rest of the UK will be economically better off but spiritually poorer if Scotland leaves.

That's why the increasingly desperate politicians facing losing 10% of their economy and the balance of payments problems which will obviously follow losing the oil are turning up the propaganda to keep the status quo, because they'll be richer once we leave eh?
I get your point though, but I'm definitely of the opinion that seeing Scotland go through upheaval will encourage the same or similar political reform in the rUK

Sure you don't want toxic banks but ALL banks need to have contingency plans. Global economic shocks are not often foreseeable, and any sound, responsible, well-run bank will not risk the funds of it's investors by being based in a country that does not have it's own central bank. This isn't lies or propaganda or wishful-thinking. It's basic business sense.

The likelihood is we'll use the pound for an agreed period of time and then set up our own currency (or potentially join the Euro, but I think that's probably some way off). So we will of course have a central bank and a currency, and we will of course have a bank deposit insurance programme.

I genuinely wish that the Scottish people were being offered a real choice about independence, instead of just the option to risk everything on a lovely idea with no hard planning behind it. "She'll be right" is a reasonable approach when gaffer taping the exhaust back onto your truck, less so when creating a nation.

So what you're suggesting is that the Scottish government and UK government should have spent months and months negotiating a pact before going to the vote? Bearing in mind the lies and propaganda which has come from the UK govt over the last year or two, this would obviously not have been a worthwhile exercise, had it even been physically and economically possible. Again, we're voting to take the right to decide the future of our country for ourselves.

I'm no raging nationalist either, I've always been a happy Brit, I'm just not that happy about the way Britain is heading, and don't see any will to change it from anywhere outside Scotland. As I'm lucky enough to be Scottish and possibly have some sort of influence on this change (regardless of how small), then I will obviously back a yes vote and we can deal with our own mess ourselves.

Is Scotland really in decline? I have been reading the opposite from SNP propagandists who have claimed that Scotland has a 10%+ higher GNP than rUK

The UK is in decline, the Scottish parliament has made some decent steps in order to ameliorate that decline in Scotland, so it's entirely possible Scotland's figures are better as the government has indirectly invested int he country rather than cut, cut, cut, but there's only so much which can be done.